RAKESH KUMAR JAKHAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited (in short, 'HARCO Bank') is the apex society under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (in short, 'the Act') in which the State has a major part of the share-capital to the extent of 65 percent by virtue of which the Managing Director of the HARCO Bank is appointed by the State and is deemed to be the functionary under the Act. The petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jakhar is a nominee of the Jhajjar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (in short, 'Jhajjar Bank') to the HARCO Bank. The election of the Board of Directors of HARCO Bank was held, by virtue of which Board of Directors (Annexure P1) comprising of 17 members was constituted on 11/9/2017 (also October 2017) (Annexure R3/5). The term of the Board of Directors was till September 2022. It is by virtue of correspondence dtd. 5/7/2019 (Annexure P2) the petitioner happens to be one of the Directors of HARCO Bank and was called for meeting of the Board of Directors of HARCO Bank to be held on 24/7/2019. It is on the basis of a correspondence dtd. 17/7/2019 (Annexure P3), the HARCO Bank sent a mail to the Jhajjar Bank to intimate that the petitioner has ceased to be representative of the Jhajjar Bank as his term has expired being one of the Directors of the Board of Directors with effect from 12/7/2019 and therefore made a request that the petitioner be informed accordingly. Aggrieved over this, the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by way of writ of certiorari seeking quashment of order dtd. 17/7/2019 (Annexure P3) and declaring him to be in the Board of Directors of HARCO Bank. It was termed that the same was in violation of Sec. 21(a) of the Act and the manner in which bye-laws by virtue of Clause 31(3) has been amended was with an ulterior motive to throw out the petitioner from the Board of Directors of HARCO Bank and thus, the relief in question.

(2.) Respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply pleaded that bye-laws No.33(i) and 34(a) were contradictory to bye-law No.31(3) and did not approve of the amendment so carried on and invariably support the case of the petitioner. The main contest that has been sought to be raised is by respondent No.3 HARCO Bank who in their reply had denied vehemently each and every averment of the petitioner alleging that since term of Board of Directors of the Jhajjar Bank had expired on 12/7/2019 the petitioner being nominee of the said bank ceases to be Director of HARCO Bank. The respondents have sought to reiterate that entire amendment has been in accordance with law and there was no illegality in the same and sought dismissal of the petition.

(3.) Giving a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Mr.Pradeep Solath, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr.Gaurav Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana representing respondents No.1 and 2; as well as Mr.Sandeep Moudgil, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, it is in no manner refuted that the petitioner happens to be a nominee of the Jhajjar Bank and that by virtue of Annexure P1, Board of Directors for the HARCO Bank was constituted in October 2017 and its term was to expire in September 2022.